MINUTES
Task Force on Reporting Strategies
Old Alumni Building, Room 103
Columbia, MO
February 6, 2003
9:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Attendees: Ben Phelps, Linda Koch, Cindy Martin, Bob Mullen, Bonita Lenger, Jennifer Doll,
Mardy Eimers, Randy Sade, Michael Ray, Barb Breen, Mike Nolan, Pat Morton, Pat Schwartz,
Craig Klimczak, Laurence Kaptain, Nancy Zielke, Art Brooks, David Saphian, Laura Stoll,
Debbie Braun, Karen Kirkwood, Larry Westermeyer, Tom Eyssel, Richard Knapp
Welcome and Introductions/Review of Charge and Outline of Deliverables – Bob Mullen
Bob reviewed the charge of the Task Force and noted that the optimal date for having
recommendations ready is May 1st. A new member, Mike Ray, from the Hospital has been
added to the Task Force and will give a presentation at our next meeting.
Campus Focus Group Summaries – Bob Mullen
Bob asked that the campuses report on the Focus Group sessions that have already been
conducted and offer any recommendations that might be beneficial to the campuses that have not
yet conducted the sessions.
St. Louis – Five sessions were held over two days, averaging about 30 attendees per session, and
valuable input was received. Sessions were held with the Chancellor’s staff, senior fiscal
officers, campus administrators, academic fiscal officers, and an open forum.
Recommendations/comments regarding the sessions were as follows:
 Split up the deans and fiscal officers because comments are very different.
 Most valuable comments came from those that use data on a day-to-day basis.
 Dean comments were more big picture.
 Administrators cannot figure out where they stand from current reports - useless.
 Reports don’t reflect true encumbrances.
 Comments focused around financial side.
 Highest desire seemed to be that reports reflect the same balances.
 Training was an issue – campus is refocusing on additional training.
 Concerns about information out of HR system, which revolves around security.
 Analogy used – think of reporting as using a TV set – you don’t care whether the signal
comes from cable, VCR, DVD, etc., but you do care about the content. We are trying to get
the concern away from where the data is coming from and shift it to what is being seen.
Columbia – Six sessions have been conducted, and a seventh session will be held Tuesday with
deans. The fiscal officers’ session seemed to be the most vocal. Pat S. reported that there were
varied comments according to group, and about 20 per session was a good number to work with.
An additional session is currently being worked on for academic advisors to get some student
involvement. Recommendations/comments regarding the sessions were as follows:
 Heard that we can’t expect reporting to be all things to all people as long as we can easily
access information that we can trust and download it – that’s what’s important. People want
to be able to use that data and add some other things to it that aren’t in the system.
 Discussion in Provost session was broader than just PeopleSoft.
 Issue of “why don’t I get the same balance?”
 Need for training on what data is being used for.
 Group was interested in ad hoc reporting.
 Higher the level, the more satisfied they were.
 Recommendation to review HR and Finance tables that are available to users to get their job
done.
 Sessions were positive as far as informal sharing of information.
 SIS people like the access to data and being able to download and manipulate it like they
want instead of having someone do it for them.
 Two-hour sessions work well, but could go with 1 ½. After about 1 ½ hours, people run out
of gas.
Bob reported that his office is working on summaries of the information gathered at the St. Louis
and Columbia sessions which will be posted on the web site as soon as they are finalized. The
web page can be accessed by a hotlink on the Vice President for Finance & Administration’s
web page, which takes you back to the Planning & Budget web page. The web site also includes
the charge of the Task Force, the white paper, and minutes from our last meeting (including
summary of exercise on Focus Group Questions).
Academic Affairs has requested that two additional focus groups be conducted with intercampus
groups – one with research officers at their meeting next week, and a second session with the
IFC at the end of this month. Other remaining sessions include a session with Outreach &
Extension on February 27, Rolla sessions will be held February 24-25, and Kansas City sessions
will be held March 3-4.
What are some of the “Best Practices” and what are other PeopleSoft customers doing?
Presentations were made as follows:
 Financial Reporting – Jennifer Doll
 Human Resources Reporting – Linda Koch
 Student Reporting – Laura Stoll
 Multi-System Implementation Reporting – Ben Phelps
Presentation materials will be out on the web site, hopefully by tomorrow.
Review of Presentations
Bob asked that everyone take the next three or four minutes and jot down a few ideas heard
during the presentations today that should be included in the recommendations. Ideas noted
were as follows:


































Datawarehouse
Reporting being external from PeopleSoft
Portal for reporting – high level and individual – must be web based
Need Data Element dictionary
Report directory
Data sharing across systems
User self-service
Need for near real-time data as well as selected census point files
Historical data
Ability to bring in data from external sources
Training (end user driven)
Good information
Identify training by groups and how to deliver
Define reporting needs of entire system vs. individual unique reports – predefined vs ad hoc
Timelines of reports
Complexity simplified
Levels/types of reporting
Some need data, some need information
Organizing tools, communicating (Michigan layout of tools)
Tools matching users
Individual reporting web page
Web based delivery of report
List of reporting priorities
Communications
Coordinated plan
Urgency, third party vendors – resources because of time constraints
Provide a vision
Reporting to make more efficient/effective
Common reporting delivery strategy across applications
Simplify obtaining data
Common language/definitions
Continuous process/quality improvement for reporting
Organize IT support
User/technical architecture relationship
Campus Group Exercise: Identifying Critical Success Factors
Due to lack of time, Bob asked that members review the list of critical success factors. Is there
anything that needs to be added? How would we measure two or three years down the road if
our recommendations were successful? What is the number one measure of success, second,
third, and so on? Thoughts should be submitted to Bob within the next week or two to aid in the
writing of components for our recommendations. Small groups will be put together to look at
each component of the recommendations. Bob will send out an e-mail to clarify what we are
looking for in the critical success factors.
What have we learned?/What do we need to do next? – Bob Mullen
Next meeting will be in March. Mike R. and Ben will do presentations in terms of what’s being
implemented, EPM/ODS, and version upgrades. We will also “roll up our sleeves” and refine
what needs to be in the recommendations. Pat requested that Art also do a presentation on what
Rolla has done to keep operational.
ADJOURN